Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 105 U.S. 451 - Ex parte Slayton

Ex parte Slayton’s Empirical Analysis

105 U.S. 451 · 1881

Citation profile

66
cited by 66 later decisions
16
cited 16 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
October 1961
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 23 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 66 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1961 · most notably Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board (1925), Providence Co v. Hill Manuf'G (1883)

10 federal appellate · 23 district · 3 state decisions

100188118901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Such being the case, we cannot say the court (upon the showing here made) has no.t acquired jurisdiction of the thing about which the litigation arises, to-wit, the fund to be apportioned among the parties who may prove to be legally entitled thereto. It has the freight money in its possession, and its trustee is in a condition to gather up the remnants of the vessel, if it has not already been done. The, jurisdiction of the court is not dependent at all on the amount, but on the rightful possession of that which is to be divided.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““As was said at filis term in The Scotland, supra ( 105 U. S. 24 [ 26 L. Ed. 1001 ]), our rules were not intended to prevent an owner from availing himself of any other remedy or process which the law itself entitled him to adopt, but to aid him in bringing into concourse those having claims against him arising from the acts of the master or crew.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The owner of a vessel may, before he or it is sued, institute appropriate proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction, to obtain the benefit of the limitation of liability provided for by Secs. 4284 and .4285 of the Revised Statutes.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.